This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cordless Larry (talk | contribs) at 10:03, 26 December 2015 (→What is this?: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main Page error reports

• WP:ERRORS
• WP:MP/E

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Misplaced Pages does not prefer any national variety of English. While Misplaced Pages strives to use language common to all English varieties, some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Main Page queue

In the news

candidates

discussion

admin instructions

Did you know

nominations

discussion

queue

BotErrors

Protected pages

Commons media protection

Associated

• Error reports
• General discussion
• FAQ
• Help
• CSS
• Sandbox
  • CSS
• History
• Alternatives
• April Fools'

• It is currently 16:05 UTC.
• Purge the Main Page
• Purge this page

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 16:05 on 14 January 2025) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Today's FA

Tomorrow's FA

Day-after-tomorrow's FA

Errors with "In the news"

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

• ... that of the 156 Conestoga wagons (pictured) brought to the Braddock Expedition of the French and Indian War, only one remained intact by the campaign's end? That's not what the article seems to say. "Only a few wagons of the Braddock Expedition ultimately remained, and they were returned to their original owners when the vehicles arrived at Wills Creek in Pennsylvania." and "In total, 156 wagons are thought to have been employed for the disastrous Braddock Expedition, the only wagon to survive intact being that of William Douglas." meaning that only one wagon survives until now, but multiple survived the expedition (or else they couldn't have been sent back to their owners surely). Fram (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also, surely it should be 'employed by' or 'taken on' the expedition 'during' the war, not 'brought to ... of'. Modest Genius 13:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  A rewording does not seem to be in the scope of Errors. The definition of "brought" is "take or go with (someone or something) to a place." which seems close enough to "taken on". SL93 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging nominator PrimalMustelid. SL93 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not what the source says. It says (I quote):

The number of Pennsylvania wagons that arrived back at Wills Creek has not been definitely established. For the service of their wagons, 30 owners received payment for a period greater than the 51 days, but of these, only 10 were paid for services beyond what appears to be July 20. Only the wagon of William Douglas, out of 146 wagons involved, seems to have survived the campaign intact. Inasmuch as the other owners were reimbursed for loss of their wagons, it is likely that those few that arrived back at Fort Cumberland were so badly damaged as to render them unserviceable, and therefore not worth driving back to eastern Pennsylvania.

In short, the writer is talking about the situation at the end of the campaign, where only the one appears to have survived the campaign in serviceable condition, the others being too damaged to be worth retaining.

Please note that I am about to log off so will not be able to respond further today. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So am I expected to emend the hook and/or article, or has the situation resolved itself? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please pull or correct this? What's the purpose of this page? Fram (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Per Gatoclass, my read is that several wagons were in some form you could vaguely still call a wagon, not completely smashed to bits but not usable, a la a totaled car. Only one was actually intact. That could very much be clarified in the article, but as long as there's not a hook–source disagreement, I'm not currently seeing a need to pull. If another admin disagrees, they're welcome to hit the button. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no indication that the wagons which were returned to their owners where "not usable". Only of the "those few that arrived back at Fort Cumberland were so badly damaged as to render them unserviceable" do we know that they were so badly damaged, but it seems (from Gatoclass' pst) that there were only 10 kept in use after 10 July anyway, the others either already damaged or sent back to their owners. There is no indication, in the source nor in the article, that all 155 other wagons were not "intact". Fram (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not following your logic at all. The source plainly states that Only the wagon of William Douglas, out of 146 wagons involved, seems to have survived the campaign intact. If it's the only one to have survived intact, then none of the others made it back to their owners, otherwise they too would have "survived intact". Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. You state "none of the others made it back to their owners", but the article states "Only a few wagons of the Braddock Expedition ultimately remained, and they were returned to their original owners when the vehicles arrived at Wills Creek in Pennsylvania. " Like I already said in my opening post. It can't both be true at the same time that "none of the others made it back to their owners" and "a few wagons were returned to their original owners". Fram (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the article contradicts itself by misstating the source. But that can be fixed simply by editing the article to comply with the source, there is no need to pull the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If only someone had pointed out yesterday that the hook and the article contradict each other, e.g. by stating about the hook "That's not what the article seems to say." with the relevant quotes. What an utter waste of time is this page and some of its responders yet again. Fram (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If only someone had the ability to improve an article... the fifth bullet point at the top of this page might prove instructive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Fram, with respect, the point of your original post was hardly crystal clear. It appeared to me that you were claiming only one of the wagons is still extant today. If you'd simply said the article contradicts itself, there would have been no room for misinterpretation.

Regardless, I have now edited the article to conform with the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

With similar quantities of respect, looking at this for the first time now, the original report was crystal clear in describing the problem IMHO. The hook and the article said different things. That's a problem whichever way you look at it, and had I seen this yesterday I would have certainly replaced the hook and pushed it back to a later date. Better to err on the side of caution and give time for the issues to be ironed out. Also, the article now says 146 wagons but the hook still says 156. Which is correct? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. On re-reading the original post, it still isn't at all clear that the poster is trying to point out a contradiction - or that a contradiction even exists, because wagons could have been "returned to their original owners" in a non-intact state. And if Fram was trying to simply point out a contradiction, what was the point of the statement meaning that only one wagon survives until now, but multiple survived the expedition (or else they couldn't have been sent back to their owners surely). That only confused the issue. So you may think the point was "crystal clear", but it seems every bit as confusing to me now as it did originally. Perhaps it only seems crystal clear to you because you had the benefit of this thread to clarify matters?

Regardless, thanks for pointing out the number error in the hook - fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If quoting the hook and then stating "That's not what the article seems to say" immediately afterwards is not "trying to point out a contradiction"... Fram (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, every question raised here is an attempt to highlight a contradiction of some kind - the point I have tried to make is that the content of the contradiction you were attempting to highlight wasn't clear - at least to me. But there's no point dragging this out any further. There was a misunderstanding, these things happen, I suggest we just forget about it and perhaps resolve to do a little better next time. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Next DYK

Next-but-one DYK

Errors in "On this day"

Today's OTD

Tomorrow's OTD

Day-after-tomorrow's OTD

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Next Monday's FL

(January 20)

"45 men have served in 46 presidencies". That's true now, but that text will still display on inauguration day. The extra presidency refers to President Grover Cleveland, but Trump is about to enter the same status. So the number of men won't change, but the number of presidencies will. Despite Martin Luther King day, 46 will be wrong after noon Eastern Time or 1700 UTC, January 20. Art LaPella (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If someone remembers, this can be amended in real time on the day...  — Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. Art LaPella (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Friday's FL

Monday's FL

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Today's POTD

Tomorrow's POTD

General discussion

• T:MP
• WT:MP

Transcluding a TFA page into ERRORS?

Okay, there's a chance everyone will think I'm a tool for even asking, but I've exhausted every other option, with zero success. I asked around for help writing a bot to ping me when the TFA section at ERRORS is edited, and I argued the case at meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey for watchable sections. I also asked for help at WP:BOTREQ#Pinging when a "task" section is edited, where the advice was given to break off the TFA section as a separate page and transclude it to either WT:MAIN or ERRORS, so that it can be watchlisted separately. That's what I'd like to do. I hesitate to ask; I'm concerned that people will misinterpret this as a request to distance TFA from other Main Page goings-on. Not true; I'd like a notice at ERRORS that anyone watchlisting is encouraged to also watchlist the transcluded TFA page. I've learned a lot from ERRORS, and I plan to keep on learning. All I'm saying is that it would be nice not to have to check all the ERRORS lines in my watchlist, all day long. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not a separate sub-page for each section? Eman235/talk 23:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about possible negative effects of this change. When I'm active one of the things I try to get around to doing is checking errors, but as I no longer use a watchlist, so I mainly use the transcluded version on main-page talk which I visit frequently; this often, I've found to my peril, lags behind errors itself, sometimes by hours, and so I fear if TfA errors were transcluded into main-page errors (and I assume additionally directly into main-page talk, not via a double transclusion?) the same would happen. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll confirm the lag in the transcluded errors section. I don't use it. Instead, I habitually click "Error reports" in the toolbox to see the real errors, not the sometimes-obsolete version of the errors. Art LaPella (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: clicking "Error reports" takes the reader to WP:Main Page/Errors aka WP:ERRORS aka ERRORS. And yes, transclusions take a while to transclude anywhere on WP, so people who want to read the most updated version of transcluded material generally either read the transcluded page directly or perform a purge (a link that will do that, called "Purge the Main Page", is above, or you can just add "?action=purge" to a url). - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't mean that anyone was unclear, I meant that some readers might not have understood some of the terms. HTH. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A fair number of admins have WP:ERRORS on their watchlist - Dank isn't the only one who can fix errors in, or make improvements/alterations to, the TFA blurb when appropriate. Dank's careful stewardship of the blurbs before they hit the main page means that there don't seem to be many changes needed anyway. Creating an extra transcluded subpage purely in reality for Dank's benefit isn't something for which I see a reasonable need. Bencherlite 08:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

non sequitur

On the main page for December 23, 2015, there was a blurb about James Battersby believing Hitler was Jesus "despite" Battersby's father having died on the Lusitania. The article on Battersby doesn't connect these two issues at all, correctly showing that the Lusitania went down in 1915. Unless I missed something actually in the article, none of the sources about Battersby quotes him as making any connection. This sort of attention grabbing misquote is what I expect of tabloids and doesn't help promote Misplaced Pages as a reliable source. 100.15.120.162 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

While I'd concur with the IP, too late to do anything about it at this point.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Festivus

I know this will get shot down and will generate little to any concurrence with my view, but I find it extremely illogical putting up a note on the main page saying that today (Dec. 23) is Festivus, when next to nobody, I dare imagine (anyone got any hard statistics?), celebrates or observes this day, especially since its source is from an American sitcom that's been off the air for almost two decades. Anyway. Just my two cents. (LancasterII (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

OTD frequently includes non-serious observances, such as International Talk Like a Pirate Day, Star Wars Day, and yes, even Festivus. However, it should be noted that Festivus poles have been installed in a few state capitols in the US, so it's not completely fictional. —howcheng {chat} 17:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not fictional yes, but limited only to select regions of the U.S. in terms of its outreach.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that's my main "beef" as it were - the extremely limited outreach of this "festival." Who outside of the US and/or Seinfeld viewers would even be cognizant of this event? i.e. Relevance!! LancasterII (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll see your "Festivus" and I'll raise you "Deep coal mining ceases in the United Kingdom with the closure of Kellingley Colliery." I don't care about this supposedly newsworthy item, but it's inoffensive and I'm not telling the main page to remove it just because it doesn't interest me. Townlake (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Coal mining impacts everybody and contributes to air pollution and global warming. Festivus does not have that same level of global impact. Still, this is now a moot point since the item fell off the front page. Festivus is for the rest of us, I suppose.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I and most of my friends are aware of today's holiday and we jokingly celebrate it. This morning's radio news mentioned that Festivus is one of several holidays being celebrated by many in the US this week. I believe Festivus is relevant to more people than "next to nobody." Townlake (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

One function of the Main Page #is# to draw people's attention to things they would not otherwise be aware of. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit reason for deleted articles...?

Didn't there used to be a edit reason plainly listed after a deleted page was gone? Now there's nothing. Why was this change implemented?

Do you have an example? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

For anonymous (not logged in) users, the deletion log is only shown for articles recently deleted if they are visited. (The log can be displayed by following the link where it says "If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log". For logged in editors, the deletion log is always shown. — xaosflux 12:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the content and layout of the Main Page; general questions should be asked at the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Christmas 2015

How dare Misplaced Pages put such unholy heresy on the front page! Have you no shame? Witchcraft is not needed in such a joyous occasion! I say we boycott this website! GamerPro64 00:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Right. Well, I'm spending this holiday season with my son gambling, drinking, and killing, so I don't have the time to get angry right now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, good, another snarky administrator.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

What is this?

Looks like an error. sst✈ 09:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: Was just about to bring that up here. I also left a message on Shirt58's talk page. CatcherStorm 10:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I just spotted that myself and came here to report it. Shirt58? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)